Did anyone seriously think the Democrats only wanted to tax the rich? The tax and spend Party want your money too Their plan is to take more of your money, and if they win in 2020, you can bet you will have more of your money going to the federal bureaucrats to spend as they please.

Amid all the hoopla about Democrats wanting to raise taxes on the rich, they are quietly working on a bill that would increase taxes on every working family in America. Why? To fund expanded benefits for baby boomers hitting retirement.

The Social Security 2100 Act would hike the combined payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers from 12.4% today to 14.8% by 2043. The bill would also apply the payroll tax on incomes over $400,000.
According to the Social Security Administration, in the first 12 years alone, this would amount to a $1.5 trillion tax hike.A Staggering Social Security Tax Hike
Once the tax hike's fully phased in, workers and employers will be paying $340 billion more a year in payroll taxes.
As a share of GDP, Social Security taxes would rise to 6.5%, up from the current 4.5%.
For families making the median income, it means paying an extra $720 a year to Social Security. But that's only half the tax bite. The employer's share effectively comes out of workers' pockets as well, in the form of lower wages. So, the real increase is more like $1,400 a year.
It is, in other words, a staggering tax hike.

The economic effects of this hike will not be pleasant. Andrew Biggs, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explained to the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this month, the impacts will likely be: a reduction in the labor supply, as well as less private savings and more household debt, particularly among lower-income families.

A Better Way
There's a bigger problem with this plan, however.
Social Security is already too gargantuan. (It eats up 24% of the federal budget.) It takes too large a share of workers' incomes, discouraging private savings. And for most people working today, it provides a lousy — often negative — rate of return.

Rather than expanding Social Security, the U.S. should be moving in the opposite direction through partial privatization. Let workers put more of their own hard-earned money in personal savings accounts that can't help but perform better than Social Security.
After all, that's what Sweden did in the 1990s, when it realized its public retirement program was going bankrupt.

And we all know how much Democrats love to compare the U.S. to countries like Sweden.

Did anyone seriously think the Democrats only wanted to tax the rich? The tax and spend Party want your money too Their plan is to take more of your money, and if they win in 2020, you can bet you will have more of your money going to the federal bureaucrats to spend as they please.

Amid all the hoopla about Democrats wanting to raise taxes on the rich, they are quietly working on a bill that would increase taxes on every working family in America. Why? To fund expanded benefits for baby boomers hitting retirement.

The Social Security 2100 Act would hike the combined payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers from 12.4% today to 14.8% by 2043. The bill would also apply the payroll tax on incomes over $400,000.
According to the Social Security Administration, in the first 12 years alone, this would amount to a $1.5 trillion tax hike.A Staggering Social Security Tax Hike
Once the tax hike's fully phased in, workers and employers will be paying $340 billion more a year in payroll taxes.
As a share of GDP, Social Security taxes would rise to 6.5%, up from the current 4.5%.
For families making the median income, it means paying an extra $720 a year to Social Security. But that's only half the tax bite. The employer's share effectively comes out of workers' pockets as well, in the form of lower wages. So, the real increase is more like $1,400 a year.
It is, in other words, a staggering tax hike.

The economic effects of this hike will not be pleasant. Andrew Biggs, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explained to the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this month, the impacts will likely be: a reduction in the labor supply, as well as less private savings and more household debt, particularly among lower-income families.

A Better Way
There's a bigger problem with this plan, however.
Social Security is already too gargantuan. (It eats up 24% of the federal budget.) It takes too large a share of workers' incomes, discouraging private savings. And for most people working today, it provides a lousy — often negative — rate of return.

Rather than expanding Social Security, the U.S. should be moving in the opposite direction through partial privatization. Let workers put more of their own hard-earned money in personal savings accounts that can't help but perform better than Social Security.
After all, that's what Sweden did in the 1990s, when it realized its public retirement program was going bankrupt.

And we all know how much Democrats love to compare the U.S. to countries like Sweden.

Over 40% of retiring seniors have Social Security as their only source of income and naturally, the right wing wants to eliminate it, and have since the day it went into effect. Bring back Work Farms and Poor Houses instead....Republicans, living in the 19th century and loving it.

Over 40% of retiring seniors have Social Security as their only source of income and naturally, the right wing wants to eliminate it, and have since the day it went into effect. Bring back Work Farms and Poor Houses instead....Republicans, living in the 19th century and loving it.

FDR began advocating for an old-age insurance program shortly after taking office in 1933. While the debate among Democrats largely centered on what form the program should take, whom it should cover and how it should be paid for, Republicans warned that the program would “impose a crushing burden on industry and labor” and “establish a bureaucracy in the field of insurance in competition with private business.”
Republicans petitioned for the old-age insurance program — what became Social Security — to be struck from the House’s bill entirely, leaving a much smaller version of welfare for the elderly. “Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people,” Rep. John Taber (R-NY) said, arguing against the program.

Political Hotwire

Founded in 2005, Political Hotwire is a political forum to discuss current events, world news, and political topics. We welcome all political ideologies to discuss all political issues from civil rights to business and industry.